ShareEditorial Roundup: Excerpts From Recent Editorials
The Associated PressExcerpts from recent editorials in newspapers around the world:
Feb. 7
The Globe and Mail, Toronto, on Canadian law and HIV:
At the heart of the HIV disclosure case before the Supreme Court of Canada is the notion that those infected have a right to privacy and autonomy _ a right that manifests itself in not having to tell a prospective sex partner that they have HIV: If the infected individuals are receiving effective treatment or if they use a condom, it's their right to remain, as it were, silent.
This is a misguided view of individual rights. Autonomy should not give people with incurable illnesses the right to put others at risk. Privacy should not mean that infected individuals may bypass consent, without which sex becomes sexual assault. Rights do not exist in a vacuum. Individuals have obligations, too, and those include the obligation not to physically hurt others, and not to willfully or recklessly spread disease.
HIV advocates say the disease no longer poses a "significant risk of serious bodily harm" _ a key phrase in a 1998 Supreme Court case on HIV disclosure before sex. Treatment or condoms should be enough. The Manitoba Court of Appeal accepted this argument in a case now before the Supreme Court. ...
The onus belongs on those infected with HIV, not on their sexual partners. That is an onus that this country's HIV advocates do not want to accept. If their view holds sway, many people would be left exposed to the possibility of life-altering disease, and the vulnerable would be especially at risk. ..
Online:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com
___
Feb. 6
The Telegraph, London, on Syria:
Recently, the Syrian government carried out the most savage reprisals against its opponents since the recent uprising began. More than 200 people are thought to have been killed by artillery, tanks and mortars in Homs. That figure compares with the worst daily spikes in violence in Iraq in 2006 and 2007. And the death total in Syria over the past 11 months - more than 5,600, according to UN estimates - is well above that over the same period for its still troubled eastern neighbor. The country over which Bashar al-Assad presides has become the most violent in the Middle East.
Such a threat to stability in one of the world's most volatile regions demands an appropriate response from the UN Security Council. Yet that body remains neutered by a Russian and Chinese refusal to accept what they see as undue interference in domestic affairs. On the very day of the Homs massacre, the two vetoed a resolution that supported an Arab League plan calling for Assad to hand over power to his vice-president and for a government of national unity to be formed, followed by elections. Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, is due in Damascus tomorrow, purportedly with the goal of persuading the regime to undertake reforms. But it has long ceased to be a credible agent of change.
What can be done in the wake of what William Hague described as the UN's "hour of shame"? U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, his American counterpart, has proposed that "friends of democratic Syria" should coordinate assistance to Assad's opponents, on the lines of the recently dissolved Contact Group on Libya. Even if it rules out direct military intervention, such a group should consider supplying weapons to the Free Syrian Army. All the evidence suggests that force alone will end Assad's misrule.
Online:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
___
Feb. 6
China Daily, Beijing, on Arab-European draft UN resolution veto:
When China joined hands with Russia to veto an Arab-European draft UN resolution backing an Arab League plan to promote a regime change in Syria, its stance was consistent with its approach to international issues.
The draft resolution that sought to realize a regime change in Syria did not adequately reflect the state of affairs in this Middle East country.
In putting the resolution to the vote, Western powers hoped to further exert pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down, thus paving the way for the removal of a regime that is an obstacle to their policies in the Middle East.
By only exerting pressure on the Syrian government and explicitly trying to coerce its leader al-Assad to step down, the resolution sends the message to armed groups and opponents of his regime that they have the support of the international community. This will undoubtedly make the Syrian situation even more complicated and make it impossible for all parties to reach a conciliatory agreement that is in the best interests of the country and its people.
We've seen what happened in Libya. With the armed intervention by some major Western powers, the Libyan regime was overthrown. But instead of the democracy and freedom they were promised, Libyan people cannot even live in peace as the country is in the danger of falling into a sectarian civil war.
It is not a question of whether Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad should step down or not. It is whether the ever-worsening crisis in the country will be brought to an end in such a way that the country will not be plunged into a sectarian civil war and its people plunged into even greater misery. ...
Online:
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn
___
Feb. 8
The Daily Star, Beirut, on Russian support for Syria:
The visit to Damascus by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov might inspire one to rely on literary allusions in discussing the development.
Lavrov traveled to Syria's capital to hold talks with top Syrian leaders, and not surprisingly, emerged with an upbeat tone, saying President Bashar Assad was committed to ending the violence, while Russia was prepared to make efforts to move events in the direction of "peace."
Lavrov's trip might be a case of A Tale of Two Cities, since what he is seeing and hearing in Damascus might lead him to believe that the situation is somehow tolerable; some 150 kilometers away, there is a very tragic, different story in the city of Homs.
Lavrov might believe that Moscow can manage a struggle between War and Peace, and is playing this role to the hilt, as one of the few foreign officials still prepared to meet with Assad.
In the end, Lavrov has emerged only with promises from the Syrian president, the kind that all sides have heard before ...
Russia might believe itself to be the only diplomatic force capable of resolving the question of War and Peace, but as it extends yet another lifeline to Syrian leaders, it is only allowing more death and destruction.
Online:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
___
Feb. 4
The Denver Post, on the Komen Foundation and Planned Parenthood:
At a time when people routinely mistrust institutions, Susan G. Komen Foundation's pink-ribboned fight against breast cancer has been a notable exception.
Everyone loves the ribbon, which you can find on football fields, yogurt containers and the sides of giant airliners. Komen has done wonders in bringing the issue of breast cancer treatment to the forefront of medical concerns and in getting millions to take part in its Race for the Cure.
Why would anyone possibly risk all that good will?
That's the question still being asked of Nancy Brinker, Komen's chief executive, who jeopardized Komen's standing by denying grants to Planned Parenthood's breast cancer screening programs. The move clearly placed Komen in the middle of the abortion controversy.
Brinker finally apologized Feb. 3, issuing a statement saying, "We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives."
In defunding Planned Parenthood of nearly $700,000 in grants, Brinker had clearly thrown in with those social conservatives who have helped make Planned Parenthood a shorthand for abortion provider. Planned Parenthood offers a wide array of medical services to underserved women, including abortions. ...
And pro-choice activists are noting how the apology specifically did not praise Planned Parenthood for its work and did not, in fact, promise to fund its programs in the future.
And so Komen, facing a public relations disaster, finds itself in the exact wrong place for a charity, with its motives questioned from all sides.
The challenge now is not just to ensure there will continue to be a race for a breast cancer cure, but to find a way forward so that everyone will be running toward the same goal.
Online:
http://www.denverpost.com
___
Feb. 5
Leader-Telegram, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, on term limits for U.S. Supreme Court justices:
The independent nature of the U.S. Supreme Court often has bedeviled presidents and members of Congress who would prefer to have more control over the lower-profile but co-equal branch of government.
And for other Americans who disagree with major court rulings _ abortion opponents with Roe v. Wade, for example, or campaign finance reform advocates with the 2010 Citizens United decision _ the court seems to be remote and out of touch with the will of the public.
The fact politicians (and the voters who elect them) sometimes bristle at Supreme Court decisions is partly by constitutional design: The court is meant to exercise a check on the power of the executive and legislative branches. And yet judges have one advantage over presidents and lawmakers: They are appointed for life, and as long as they are still in relatively good health they can stay on the court indefinitely.
And as life expectancies increase, so do judicial tenures. Before 1970, the average Supreme Court term was 15 years; among those who have retired or died since then, however, the average term has been 26 years. This trend has been exacerbated in recent decades as presidents, seeking to cement their long-term influence on the nation, have appointed justices in their 40s and 50s instead of in their 60s and 70s.
The result, critics say, is a court full of justices unresponsive to the political, cultural and social changes going on outside their chambers. Justices appointed by Presidents George W. Bush or Barack Obama may still be on the bench in the 2050s when the United States will be a very different nation. ...
The concept, originally touted by a pair of legal scholars (one a Democrat, one a Republican) in 2002, involves a constitutional amendment creating 18-year terms for justices. One term would expire every two years. ...
In short, judges still would be independent, but they wouldn't be fossilized. ...
Online:
http://www.leadertelegram.com
___
Feb. 3
Chattanooga (Tennessee) Free Press on Obama's Afghanistan strategy:
There is little we would like more than for peace and stability to reign in Afghanistan and for the U.S. military to be able to end combat operations there immediately. But that has to be guided not by wishful thinking but by conditions on the ground.
Unfortunately, there are strong indications that the Taliban _ the radical Muslims in Afghanistan who harbored al-Qaida terrorists prior to the 9/11 attacks on America _ are seeking to regain control of that country, and that they will intensify efforts to take power if U.S. forces leave.
That is a horrible prospect for the Afghan people, who suffered under Taliban brutality until the United States led the effort to remove the Taliban from power after 9/11.
But the Taliban threatens our country, too. Taliban rule in Afghanistan poses the possibility of al-Qaida again finding safe haven there and plotting more terrorist attacks against us.
That raises big doubts about the Obama administration's decision to speed the end of the United States' combat role in Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says our troops' role will change from combat to the training of Afghan forces by late 2013, earlier than previous estimates.
That is worrisome because of indications from U.S. intelligence sources that hard-won progress toward stability and security in Afghanistan could be in jeopardy.
We don't want to keep U.S. forces in Afghanistan any longer than necessary. But the administration shouldn't make politically popular decisions today that may have long-term negative consequences.
Online:
http://www.timesfreepress.com
___
Feb. 4
The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Kentucky, on Mitt Romney and the poor:
Presidents have had New Deals, Fair Deals and a "war on poverty" aimed at lifting up the poor and preventing the middle and working classes from backsliding. Even presidents and presidential candidates who probably were much more concerned with Wall Street barons and oil tycoons acted as if they cared about the poor. (Remember George W. Bush and "compassionate conservatism"?)
And now we have Mitt Romney, who began his first full day after the Florida primary victory that probably destines him to be the Republicans' presidential nominee by telling a startled CNN interviewer, "I'm not concerned about the very poor."
Romney later insisted that the quote was taken out of context _ he added that a safety net protects the poor, pledged to fix it if it's in need of repairs and emphasized aid to the struggling middle class _ and still later said he "misspoke" and made a "slip up on a word." ...
The problem is that the context of Romney's remark is actually far more troubling than the single line that has received so much attention as the latest example of his tin ear. ..
... his professed middle-income concern for "the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling" shows appalling ignorance about the extent of poverty in this country. According to the 2010 Census, 15.1 percent of Americans _ more than 46 million people _ live in poverty. The percentage for children is 22 percent, and wildly disproportionate numbers of them will remain poor all of their lives ,,,
Yet, those are the people that Romney, as president of the United States, wouldn't worry about. That should worry everyone else.
Online:
http://www.courier-journal.com
___
Feb. 7
Los Angeles Times on U.S. drones:
When the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism released a report Feb. 5 claiming that U.S. drone strikes have killed dozens of civilian rescuers and mourners in Pakistan, the American media scarcely noticed. Similarly, while other countries hotly debate America's covert program of targeted assassination, its legality has never been considered by a U.S. court and is seldom discussed by Congress, which has ceded extraordinary authority over the drone program to the president and the CIA.
That silence could well come back to haunt this country.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism's findings are worth a look _ not because they're an ironclad assertion of facts on the ground in Pakistan's tribal areas, where solid information is hard to come by, but because of the questions they raise about the drone program. The three-month investigation turned up evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed when they tried to rescue people injured in a drone attack, only to be hit with another round of missiles. If this is true, it's a tactic that seems borrowed from the playbook of Islamist terrorists, who have been known to set off bombs in crowded areas, wait for rescuers to arrive and then explode more bombs to maximize the carnage. ...
Other countries have developed drone technology, and if they follow U.S. precedent, they could start targeting their own enemies across any border they like, including our own. It is past time for U.S. courts and the United Nations to explore the legal issues involved in targeted assassination and set rules that take into account advances in technology.
Online:
http://www.latimes.com
___